NormanH Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 A new biography has just come out.Here is a reviewhttp://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-gin-servants-and-bloodlines-for-royaltys-alf-garnett-in-a-tiara-1792793.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Zoff Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 I enjoyed the review - far more, I suspect, than I would the book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dog Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 I did not enjoy the book the review or the subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scooby Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 [quote user="Dog"]I did not enjoy the book the review or the subject. [/quote]LOL Dog you have some major jealousy issues!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Zoff Posted September 26, 2009 Share Posted September 26, 2009 [quote user="Dog"]I did not enjoy the book the review or the subject. [/quote]There's just no pleasing some people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quillan Posted September 26, 2009 Share Posted September 26, 2009 I have just read the review and it was not what I expected after reading the posts. In fact I thought it quite derogatory towards the Queen Mother and the rest of the royal family. I am amazed that Dog didn't like the review as I always thought him to be anti monarchy which, by his comments he clearly isn't or perhaps he is and has not read either the review/article or the book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dog Posted September 26, 2009 Share Posted September 26, 2009 I found the review nearly refreshingly half-honest but I didn't enjoy it. It could have got much closer to the truth and shown the Royals for what they are,.I think the Royals are great if they found some small island and went to live there at their own expense. (Sadly they think that has already happened).I'd have to be very quick off the mark to read the book but I guess Q got a review copy.It must be fact that Q paid hommage in his semi-secret alter ego life to the Royals and yet chooses to live in a democratic republic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quillan Posted September 26, 2009 Share Posted September 26, 2009 I don't have the book so I have not read it and therefore cannot possibly comment.Would it not be more expediant for you live on an island and then invite those you like to live there with you or come and visit. I rather suspect, sadly, that you would spend much or all of the time on your own. [:D] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Coeur de Lion Posted September 26, 2009 Share Posted September 26, 2009 I've got no problems with the royals. Sure they cost a lot to run, but I think they pull that money back via tourism etc.I certainly wouldn't want their lifestyles. Continually being judged, having to perform lots of boring duties like opening hospitals etc and having to be nice to people even if they feel like crap. The Queen's in her 80's and still doing all this stuff. And it's a life where they have little choice in the matter. I guess the Queen could abdicate, but then that would mean Charlie being king, so not much choice there really.Unless she got Phillip to do the same trick on Charlie as he did on Diana..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iceni Posted September 26, 2009 Share Posted September 26, 2009 [quote user="Richard"]I certainly wouldn't want their lifestyles. Continually being judged, having to perform lots of boring duties like opening hospitals etc and having to be nice to people even if they feel like crap. The Queen's in her 80's and still doing all this stuff. And it's a life where they have little choice in the matter. I guess the Queen could abdicate, but then that would mean Charlie being king, so not much choice there really.[/quote]Of course they have a choice, Edward the Nazi lover got out. As with Ryanair there is always an alternative.John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cat Posted September 26, 2009 Share Posted September 26, 2009 [quote user="Dog"] I did not enjoy the book the review or the subject. [/quote][quote user="Dog"]I'd have to be very quick off the mark to read the book but I guess Q got a review copy.[/quote]So, why say that you didn't enjoy the book if you hadn't read it? [8-)] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Will Posted September 26, 2009 Share Posted September 26, 2009 I didn't think the review was particularly enjoyable or revealing - in fact it came across as a somewhat bitter, snide anti-royalist rant. I don't know if the book is an honest biography or a monarchist whitewash; the review didn't make even that particularly clear. Instead we are treated to the reviewer's own prejudices. It's certainly no secret that the late QM was somewhat extravagant or that she had somewhat nationalistic and xenophobic views. Most well-to-do people of her generation did (as well as many less well-off). Few people then liked or trusted the Jews. But I certainly don't see how that made her, or many other British people, into fervent supporters of Hitler and his party whose name we are not allowed to mention on this forum. Likewise many people were in favour of appeasement - but surely this had more to do with not wanting war than supporting Hitler.And as for royals and islands - isn't that what the late Princess Margaret did? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tegwini Posted September 26, 2009 Share Posted September 26, 2009 I can remember doing an essay at university on asppeasement in the 1930s. Many people (wrongly) supported the idea of appeasement and many as a result of the statistics provided by the military and other statisticians. After WW1 with so many deaths and also casulties, statistics were provided to the government, headed by Neville Chamberlain. These calculated deaths and injuries based on the deaths etc during WWI and multiplied many times because of the advances in science and military engineering and the new figures were quite staggering : hundreds of thousands killed nightly from bombing in London for example. It was obvious that civilians in the 'next' war would form a large part of the casulties - and they did.Thus many people were opposed to any war - pacificism was almost the norn. Wrong of course, we know from hindsight, but not so then. The Royal family clearly followed this trend.The review of the book, being a page or so, tells us little. But we do know that there are many sycophants hanging around royalty, many making money from, for example, writing books, and clearly to be 'approved' you are expected to say little that might be contentious or controversial.Tegwini Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tegwini Posted September 26, 2009 Share Posted September 26, 2009 Richard wrote:I certainly wouldn't want their lifestyles. Continually beingjudged, having to perform lots of boring duties like opening hospitalsetc and having to be nice to people even if they feel like crap. TheQueen's in her 80's and still doing all this stuff. And it's a lifewhere they have little choice in the matter. I guess the Queen couldabdicate, but then that would mean Charlie being king, so not muchchoice there really.Previous kings and queens executed rival claimants to the throne! It can't be that bad can it ??On the quiet the current lot are probably as racist as the older ones. Did you see Charles et al date/marry anyone other than an upper crust and/ or pure WASP type girl/boy ? And, no doubt, like many mothers, the queen thinks her Charlie is wonderful and would make a super king ! Abdication is just not part of the deal, and it would also increase the civil list if we also had 'retired' monachs to fund as well.Tegwini Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Zoff Posted September 26, 2009 Share Posted September 26, 2009 So Norm, having introduced the topic without comment, are you going to let us in on your thoughts on the book or review? Or was it just a case of lighting the touch-paper, enjoying watching the fireworks, but standing well clear? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edward Trunk Posted September 26, 2009 Share Posted September 26, 2009 The QM was made into a totem in the latter part of her life, largely through the efforts of the "Mail" and "Telegraph". What she was or wasn't like, or what she did or didn't do wasn't important. She became the focus of a set of beliefs and attitudes - dislike and distrust of foreigners, a Thatcherite-type conservatism, and strong beliefs in monarchy, aristocracy and a class system. Working people, for example, were the salt of the earth so as they knew their place and didn't join trades unions. As Marx said, it's not what you believe that determines how you live, it's how you live that determines what you believe. I thought the treacle-and-clotted cream industry had died along with the QM, but I notice from last week's "Telegraph" that it's been revived. Passez le sac de vomissement! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NormanH Posted September 26, 2009 Author Share Posted September 26, 2009 [quote user="Alan Zoff"]So Norm, having introduced the topic without comment, are you going to let us in on your thoughts on the book or review? Or was it just a case of lighting the touch-paper, enjoying watching the fireworks, but standing well clear?[/quote]I chose to live in a Republic... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Coeur de Lion Posted September 26, 2009 Share Posted September 26, 2009 [quote user="NormanH"][quote user="Alan Zoff"]So Norm, having introduced the topic without comment, are you going to let us in on your thoughts on the book or review? Or was it just a case of lighting the touch-paper, enjoying watching the fireworks, but standing well clear?[/quote]I chose to live in a Republic...[/quote]Is that the main reason, or one of the reasons you moved to France?Personally, I don't see a lot of difference between the two systems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
powerdesal Posted September 26, 2009 Share Posted September 26, 2009 [quote user="tegwini"]Previous kings and queens executed rival claimants to the throne! It can't be that bad can it ??On the quiet the current lot are probably as racist as the older ones. Did you see Charles et al date/marry anyone other than an upper crust and/ or pure WASP type girl/boy ?Tegwini[/quote]I guess I must be a racist too on the basis of the above, forgetting the 'upper crust' and 'boy' bit, oh and make it WASC girl not WASP. [:P] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dog Posted September 26, 2009 Share Posted September 26, 2009 Because I haven't enjoyed the book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now